Thoughts On Church History, Theology, And Faith Crisis

[selek1]

Or when your mind is so full of judgment.

Pot, meet kettle.

You're in no position to state, as a matter of fact, that these people didn't sincerely pray or read.

True. Such a pronouncement would be a subjective judgement and may or may not be either substantive or accurate.

We, as Latter-day Saints are not (as a general rule) in a position to judge the sincerity of another's heart.

statement

This is just something Mormons like to tell themselves when faced with the undeniable fact that most people who take up the Mormon test of truth, don't receive the answers promised by the missionaries.

This statement, too, is an unjustifiable pronouncement of opinion as fact.

There is simply no rationale, objective, scientific means by which you could know this. Your statement is simply a regurgitation of useful propaganda- though I have no doubt that you are sincere in the hatred behind it.

In point of fact, you can not know that Why Me's statement is "just something Mormons like to tell themselves" nor is the idea that "most people don't receive the answers promised by the missionaries" an undeniable fact.

Both are talking points and statements of (anti-)faith rather than objective truths or facts.

In other words- your complaints are as untenable and unfalsifiable as are Why Me's. If she is standing in quicksand, then so are you.

Heck I remember in the beginning I wanted the Church to be true so badly, that I deluded myself into thinking any little feeling I had at the time must have been God's answer. I thought the Joseph Smith experience was so cool, I wanted to experience something like it as well. I couldn't wait to go home and pray about it and I had absolute confidence that I'd receive some kind of undeniable experience. In hindsight, I felt nothing that had to be classified as "spiritual."

I agree with your self-assessment: there's definitely some self-delusion occuring; primarily in the idea that your position is any more objeectively "true" now than it was when you were a believer. Edited April 21, 2012 by selek1

[why me]

Or when your mind is so full of judgment.

You're in no position to state, as a matter of fact, that these people didn't sincerely pray or read. This is just something Mormons like to tell themselves when faced with the undeniable fact that most people who take up the Mormon test of truth, don't receive the answers promised by the missionaries.

I actually go by the tone of the posts. If the post is mocking or bashing, I can state that the prayer did not occur or that the poster was so full of vinegar to warrant my conclusion. Unfortunately, a judgement must be made.

Mormons know that if prayers of request are made with sincerity, with an open heart and soul, an answer to a prayer will come and it may not be a burning of the bossom or with any other feeling. But with an experience. But since there is a promise by god in the book of mormon that the answer is yes, then mormons must believe that the feeling or experience will constitute a yes. The person praying just must recognize it. It may not been sooner than latter but latter than sooner. But the heart must sincerely be open. .

Edited April 21, 2012 by why me

[why me]

In other words- your complaints are as untenable and unfalsifiable as are Why Me's. If she is standing in quicksand, then so are you.

Except that my quicksand is slower in the submerging. Reading Xander's posts and the spirit which they are seemingly made, one can wager a good guess that if he were never a member and prayed about the book which such a spirit as in his posts, his heart may not be open for the holy ghost to testify or show the truth. He may need an Alma, the younger experience or an experience of Paul to change his mind.

And that was my point to. There was a reason that the lord needed to interfere with the younger Alma and with Paul with the way that he did. Too much vinegar in the blood and not enough sugar.

[selek1]

Except that my quicksand is slower in the submerging. Reading Xander's posts and the spirit which they are seemingly made, one can wager a good guess that if he were never a member and prayed about the book which such a spirit as in his posts, his heart may not be open for the holy ghost to testify or show the truth. He may need an Alma, the younger experience or an experience of Paul to change his mind.

And that was my point to. There was a reason that the lord needed to interfere with the younger Alma and with Paul with the way that he did. Too much vinegar in the blood and not enough sugar.

Actually- my first impulse was to suggest that Xander was up to his chin in a semi-solid substance other than quicksand, but I decided to be nice.

And you are quite correct: while we cannot objective KNOW what is in another's heart, we can make educated guesses based on conduct, statements made, and the arguments they put forward.

[Log]

And you are quite correct: while we cannot objective KNOW what is in another's heart, we can make educated guesses based on conduct, statements made, and the arguments they put forward.

Only if you've been there.

[Xander]

True. Such a pronouncement would be a subjective judgement and may or may not be either substantive or accurate.

We, as Latter-day Saints are not (as a general rule) in a position to judge the sincerity of another's heart.

And yet this is what you do regularly without fail. Whyme's quip is but one example of many that could be pointed out, as is your attempt to defend him while simultaneously conceding that he doing precisely what I said he was doing. Surely you can come up with something better than "you do it too"? You're clearly less concerned that a fellow Mormon is engaging in baseless judgment of others and you're clearly more concerned about the fact that an ex-Mormon is pointing it out.

This statement, too, is an unjustifiable pronouncement of opinion as fact

Wrong. I already pointed out that as a faithful member who once tried to make sense of these facts, I rationalized along the same lines. Of course we liked to tell ourselves these things. It made the problem magically disappear because it required no real explanation beyond judging the rest of the world as insincere. It is a standard Mormon response to the uncomfortable fact that most people do not join the Church, despite having gone through all the motions with the missionaries.

There is simply no rationale, objective, scientific means by which you could know this.

Sure there is. Why me is a Mormon, and he naturally follows Mormon teaching. LDS doctrine states that God will answer in the affirmative, only those who are sincere. Therefore, my argument is perfectly sound. Here is a recent excerpt from the Liahona:

To all who wonder if such a thing can be—who might ask, “Is it possible that God speaks to us today?”—with all my heart I invite you to “come and see” (John 1:46). Read the word of God as found in the scriptures. Listen to general conference with an ear willing to hear the voice of God given through His latter-day prophets. Come, hear, and see with your heart! For if you seek “with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, [God] will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost” (Moroni 10:4). By and through this power, I know that Jesus Christ lives and directs His Church through a living prophet, even President Thomas S. Monson.

Given this theological premise adopted by Mormons everywhere, the only logical way to make sense of this is to conclude that those non-LDS who claim to have prayed and/or read, didn't really do so sincerely. You see, according to Mormon doctrine, problems receiving an answer can never be due to a deficiency with the proposed system, because that would make God a liar. The deficiency must therefore be found in presumed weaknesses of those involved in the process. And as Mormon doctrine states, only those with a sincere heart will be told the truth about Mormonism. The Elders never tell a prospective convert that prayer will "maybe" help them, if they're lucky enough to catch God on a day when he isn't too busy. No. They in fact guarantee that an answer will come so long as you read and pray with a sincere heart.

In point of fact, you can not know that Why Me's statement is "just something Mormons like to tell themselves" nor is the idea that "most people don't receive the answers promised by the missionaries" an undeniable fact.

Wrong again. The latter is clearly an undeniable fact, as most people who read the Book of Mormon and pray about it, don't end up getting baptized - and most of those who do, end up leaving at some point. The only evidence you have against it is with the very same psychoanalyses you just discredited. So which is it going to be? The first statement is based on my own experience in the Church. I spent enough time in the Church, in enough missions, with enough missionaries, in enough states and in enough countries, to know that this is a common rationale by Mormons. It isn't based on anything more than Mormon scripture and the assumption that this scripture must be true.

Both are talking points and statements of (anti-)faith rather than objective truths or facts.

Nonsense. Why Me's judgment is a necessary judgment based on the Mormon premise explained above. All I did was point out the fact that he is in fact judging based on nothing but the Mormon's desire to make sense of the fact that most people who do pray, don't join the Church. Billions of non-Mormons pray to God every day, and yet it is funny how none of them are ever told by him to go find his one True Church. Either it must not be that important to God, or they have no real communication with God. Thanks to Mormon doctrine, LDS members are required to pass judgment on others. The irony here is that you don't even seem to realize it, and that it is why you and why me continue to label everyone else a "hater." Why do you think we hate? Because the Church tells you so. Years ago there was a thread on this forum discussing whether or not a person could leave the Church for intellectual reasons. Without exception, the group of Mormons here went on their personal rants about how every apostate they know in real life left the Church because they wanted to sin on some level. Of course, this is also how the Church tells you to think about apostates. So you just accept it, assume that false caricature and act accordingly as judges, all the while pretending to be some kind of victim.

Case in point. All I did here was point out why why me's statement was a judgment on others. No Mormon here would have spoken up because he is a fellow believer, and the unspoken rule here is that apologists don't turn on their own. But now that I've brought the matter to the table for examination, the only way you're willing to address it is by attacking me.

I agree with your self-assessment: there's definitely some self-delusion occuring; primarily in the idea that your position is any more objeectively "true" now than it was when you were a believer

Wrong. Now I base my beliefs on what's actually true, whereas before I based them on what I wanted to be true. I still want the church to be true sometimes, but it isn't. And I no longer have to perform mental gymnastics with myself just to make it through the day. It was a very tough decision and process to endure, and until you go through it yourself, all you're doing is passing judgment on that which you know nothing about. But that's OK I guess, since your religious teaching requires that you judge others accordingly.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Xander

[why me]

Only if you've been there.

It is good to use the sociological imagination when considering tone, result and experience.

Sociologists differ in their understanding of the concept, but the range suggests several important commonalities.

Mills defined sociological imagination as "the vivid awareness of the relationship between experience and the wider society." Sociological Imagination: The application of imaginative thought to the asking and answering of sociological questions. Someone using the sociological imagination "thinks himself away" from the familiar routines of daily life. (Glidden A12)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociological_imagination

If church members would use the sociological imagination when investigating lds history, it can be very faith promoting because it does allow one to think themselves away from the more familiar routines and it draws a correlation between experience and our wider society. It also primes our imagination to go into the past and view that wider society based on the experience of the people who lived at that time.

[Log]

My point is if you haven't experienced what Xander has, you are unable to accurately guess at, or judge, the contents of his heart, because you quite literally don't know what you're talking about.

Another way to illustrate my point is this: I, being male, cannot accurately guess what it feels like to experience giving birth. Screaming means there's some kind of pain involved, I guess, but that's the end of my educated guesses.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Log

[Xander]

And you are quite correct: while we cannot objective KNOW what is in another's heart, we can make educated guesses based on conduct, statements made, and the arguments they put forward.

But that isn't what you're doing. You make judgments, not guesses, and you do so in absolute terms based on expectations, not conduct. In LDS thought, once the identity has been pin-pointed as apostate, then all else can be dismissed because that person is just bitter, immoral, hateful, etc.

According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism,

The most frequent causes of apostasy are failure to

maintain strict standards of morality

, taking personal offense (real or perceived), marrying someone who is of another faith or who is irreligious, neglecting to pray and maintain spirituality, or misunderstanding of the teachings of the Church.

Since there is simply no rationale, objective, scientific means by which the Church could know this, all that is left is baseless judgment and/or a need to believe it is true. And if the Church leads by example, it encourages all members to judge accordingly.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Xander

[why me]

My point is if you haven't experienced what Xander has, you are unable to accurately guess at, or judge, the contents of his heart, because you quite literally don't know what you're talking about.

Another way to illustrate my point is this: I, being male, cannot accurately guess what it feels like to experience giving birth. Screaming means there's some kind of pain involved, I guess, but that's the end of my educated guesses.

Here is more from the same website:

The sociological imagination is the ability to see things socially and how they interact and influence each other. To have a sociological imagination, a person must be able to pull away from the situation and think from an alternative point of view. It requires to "think ourselves away from our daily routines and look at them anew". To acquire knowledge, it is important to break free from the immediacy of personal circumstances and put things into a wider context, rather than following a routine. The actions of people are much more important than the acts themselves.

Although this comes from the wiki, it actually originates with anthony giddens textbook: Sociology.

In order to experience or empathize for the wife giving birth, one can use their sociological imagination and begin the inquiry of imagination of what it must be to experience it. This leads to a better understanding.

Edited April 21, 2012 by why me

[selek1]

Part One:

You're clearly less concerned that a fellow Mormon is engaging in baseless judgment of others and you're clearly more concerned about the fact that an ex-Mormon is pointing it out.

Yet another mind-reading failure. As usual, your supposition is 180^O off from reality.

I already pointed out that as a faithful member who once tried to make sense of these facts, I rationalized along the same lines.

That YOU rationalized along these lines does not mean that every Mormon does. Nor does it prove that the rationalization is universally false.

In point of fact, you have no objective, empiral proof of your assertion.

As such, your attempt to dismiss it as "just something Mormons tell themselves" is a statement of faith, not fact.

It is a standard Mormon response to the uncomfortable fact that most people do not join the Church, despite having gone through all the motions with the missionaries.

In point of fact, you are simply regurgitating the same propaganda point, hoping that the accusation will stick.

In point of fact, you have no objective, empiral proof of your assertion.

Sure there is. Why me is a Mormon, and he naturally follows Mormon doctrine.

I'm not sure if this is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy or just an inept attempt at well-poisoning.

In either case, you cannot simply disqualify WhyMe because he/she is a Mormon- any more than someone can be dismissed out of hand for being non-Mormon.

Given this theological premise adopted by Mormons everywhere, the only logical way to make sense of this is to conclude that those non-LDS who claim to have prayed and/or read, didn't really do so sincerely.

Nonsense. This is yet another mind reading failure, and a bigoted, baseless assertion.

You are deliberately and hatefully painting a false dichotomy- an either/or decision that lies only the blackest depths of a rigid, hateful, uncritical mind.

The Latter-day Saints as a people are not bound by this false dichotomy, no matter how much you project your methods upon us.

You see, according to Mormon doctrine, problems receiving an answer can never be due to a deficiency with the proposed system, because that would make God a liar.

Yet another false dichotomy, offered for polemical purposes.

Faithful Mormons are not constrained to see the lack of an immediate answer as either 1) proof of an insincere heart, or 2) as a problem with "the system".

Nor was WhyMe attempting to make such an argument.

Despite your attempt to straighjacket us with your own preconceptions, we are open to many other possibilites.

The deficiency must therefore be found in presumed weaknesses of those involved in the process.

Sorry- but this is your particular tar baby- not ours.

And as Mormon doctrine states, only those with a sincere heart will be told the truth about Mormonism.

True. But we don't assume that a qualifier is also a guarantee.

We accept- and teach- that only those who ask in sincerity and faith will receive an answer. We do not, however, presume to put God on speed-dial.

Nothing in Mormon thought or theology implies that God is is some sort of vending machine who responds to every prayer/quarter with an instant/automatic answer.

That requirement is one that you insist on imposing us in order to advance your agenda.

It is not something we teach or believe.

The Elders never tell a prospective convert that prayer will "maybe" help them, if they're lucky enough to catch God on a day when he isn't too busy. No. They in fact guarantee that an answer will come so long as you read and pray with a sincere heart.

Again- this is a false characterization, made out of malice and spite.

And as they say in my neck of the woods, "That dog just won't hunt."

[selek1]

Part Two:

The latter is clearly an undeniable fact, as most people who read the Book of Mormon and pray about it, don't end up getting baptized.

That most people who read the Book of Mormon and pray about it don't get baptized is a matter of debate and qualification.

Even granting that questionable premise, however, your statement is simply logically untenable.

There are myriad reasons why a potential convert might fail to be baptized. That they failed to receive Moroni's promise is only one possibility.

That being the case, your assertion that a failure to be baptized is automagically proof that Moroni's promise failed is a non sequitor.

You simply have no logical, empirical, or objective basis to make such a claim.

The only evidence you have against it is with the very same psychoanalyses you just discredited.

Wrong again.

So which is it going to be? The first statement is based on my own experience in the Church. I spent enough time in the Church, in enough missions, with enough missionaries, in enough states and in enough countries, to know that this is a common rationale by Mormons.

The problem with this statement is two fold:

First, you're shifting the goal posts. You didn't argue that it was a common rationale among Mormons. You argued that it was "just something Mormons told themselves." Your argument above represents a retreat from the latter position.

Second, your own credibility is questionable. You are clearly a hostile witness in every sense of the word- and have been proven incorrect and ideologically blinded on a number of points before hand.

You have demonstrably revised your rationales and accounts on more than one occasion.

As such- and in the absence of objective evidence to support your claims- we are simply under no obligation to take your interpretation and recollections as proof of what you claim.

Nonsense. Why Me's judgment is a necessary judgment based on the Mormon premise explained above.

As has been amply demonstrated, this is false. While you insist that we must choose one of your poisoned pellets or the other, it simply isn't so. We are not bound by the false dichotomy you insist upon.

All I did was point out the fact that he is in fact judging based on nothing but the Mormon's desire to make sense of the fact that most people who do pray, don't join the Church.

Incorrect and false. You attempted to impose your interpretation of that evidence upon us.

Neither WhyMe nor the rest of the faithful Latter-day Saints are bound by your interpretation.

In point of fact, you are deliberately mischaracterizing WhyMe's position. He/she (and I really should get that question clarified) is not and has not argued that the lack of an answer to prayer is automatic or irrefutable evidence of an insincere heart.

Yea, but reading the comments by the mormon haters, I knew that they didn't pray over it nor did they read the book. Or if they did pray, it was a mocking prayer. When the heart is full of contention, difficult for the holy ghost to manifest himself.

His/her argument is instead that mockery, derision, and hateful comments towards Moroni's promise automagitally disqualify them from its fulfillment.

The mockery and condescension offered- not the lack of an answer- are the evidence of an insincere heart.

Billions of non-Mormons pray to God every day, and yet it is funny how none of them are ever told by him to go find his one True Church.

Again- this bit of attempted mind-reading is something you cannot possibly know.

Not being God, you cannot possibly know what he is (or is not) telling people.

Either it must not be that important to God, or they have no real communication with God.

This is another false dichotomy, identical in scope and substance to the first- and just as meaningless.

Thanks to Mormon doctrine, LDS members are required to pass judgment on others.

This is a deliberate falsehood. Call For References.

The irony here is that you don't even seem to realize it, and that it is why you and why me continue to label everyone else a "hater." Why do you think we hate? Because the Church tells you so.

Utter rot. I consider you a "hater" because you consistently choose the least charitable and most hateful interpretation of the evidence.

I consider you a "hater" because you routinely condescend to, insult, dismiss, and belittle anyone who disagrees with you.

I consider you a "hater" because mockery, derision, condescension, and slander are your only recourse.

I consider you a "hater" becuase you consistently and deliberately assume the worst in others around you.

I consider you a "hater" because you consistently accuse others of the very behaviors you embody.

I don't consider you a hater because we disagree- but because you consider everyone who disagrees with you to be "less" than you.

Wrong. Now I base my beliefs on what's actually true, instead of what I want to be true.

Yet another statement of faith and unfounded self-congratulations.

I don't have to perform mental gymnastics just to make it through the day.

Nor do I- nor do most people of my acquaintance.

Your insinuation is that the faithful are required to perform such gymnastic is based upon prejudice, rather than fact.

Unfortunately, that particular intellectual promontory doesn't make you special or right.

It simply makes you complacent.

Edited April 21, 2012 by selek1

[why me]

But that isn't what you're doing. You make judgments, not guesses, and you do so in absolute terms based on expectations, not conduct. In LDS thought, once the identity has been pin-pointed as apostate, then all else can be dismissed because that person is just bitter, immoral, hateful, etc.

Thus, I exercise my sociological imagination to think myself away from my familiar routines to see things anew. And then, through critical inquiry, I can make an educated guess.

[Xander]

Part one

Yet another mind-reading failure. As usual, your supposition is 180 off from reality.

Let's see. Whyme passes judgment on people who claim to have read and prayed. You offer no objection to that. I point out that he is judging others and then suddenly you decide to object by claiming I'm a hypocrite. I'm content to let the readers decide how much "mind-reading" is needed here in determining what's really troubling you.

That YOU rationalized along these lines does not mean that every Mormon does. Nor does it prove that the rationalization is universally false.

I didn't say that now did I? That I rationalized along those lines as a faithful member is just consistent with the fact that Mormons generally follow their religious teaching (that insincerity is a reason God doesn't answer us). And it is consistent with virtually everything I've heard from other former members who bear their own testimonies about their experiences. Does this constitute scientific proof? Of course not. But virtually nothing on these forums is scientifically proven, including the rhetoric that oozes from your own posts. But you have no problem with LDS folks asserting facts that have not been proven beyond all doubt. You know, things like "the fact is, Joseph Smith was a prophet of God." Or the "fact that the church is true," etc. Funny how these frequently asserted statements are never qualified or downgraded as mere faith statements. I highly doubt you're going to stand up during the next testimony sacrament and complain that everyone keeps saying the Church is true. I mean, it is a point of fact that they have no objective, empirical proof for this assertion. Right?

In point of fact, you have no objective, empiral proof of your assertion.

It would help if you understood what an assertion was becuase I never asserted this.

As such, your attempt to dismiss it as "just something Mormons tell themselves" is a statement of faith, not fact

That's a non sequitur. It is a fact that Mormons like to tell themselves these things that their Church has taught them to be true. Why wouldn't they? When the Church assures them that God only speaks about Mormonism's truths to the truly sincere (meaning everyone else who prays is insincere) it places them in an elite class in the eyes of their Church and God. It also conveniently explains away the sad fact that most people who read and pray with the missionaries, do not end up joining the Church. People in general would rather blame others for their own woes, instead of entertaining the possibility that some variable in their religious worldview has gone amiss.

In point of fact, you are simply regurgitating the same propaganda point, hoping that the accusation will stick.

In point of fact, you have no objective, empiral proof of your assertion that I am hoping for such a thing. It isn't a "propaganda point" to state facts. Just because they are uncomfortable to you, doesn't make them less factual. Of course you're free to prove me wrong by providing a rational explanation as to why anyone (let alone most of the hundreds of thousands) being taught by the missionaries would receive an answer that the Church is true, and yet refuse to be baptized at some point. I suppose it is technically "possible" that some evil anti-Mormon kidnapped the investigator's family and threatened to kill them if he or she ever joined the Church. That I suppose, would count as an example you're looking for, but I think it highly unlikely. Even so, you'd have to come up with a few hundred thousand crazy scenarios like this one (where people who know the Church to be true insist on not joining it for "other" reasons) before your argument could ever hope to approach plausibility. These are the kinds of mental gymnastics I waved bye-bye to a long time ago.

I'm not sure if this is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy or just an inept attempt at well-poisoning.

In point of fact, you have no objective, empiral proof of your assertion that my anecdote was intended to be either. It was simply evidence to support my premise that Whyme's judgment wasn't born in a vacuum. He is acting precisely as one might expect a faithful, apologetic-minded Mormon to act; by following LDS teaching on the subject. Thus, those critics who claim to have prayed, are really lying about their sincerity. This is perfectly consistent with the kind of thinking that is shaped through Mormon teachings about apostates.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Xander

[Xander]

Part Two

Nonsense. This is yet another mind reading failure, and a bigoted, baseless assertion.

Ah, I was wondering how long before you threw that word out there. In point of fact, you have no objective, empiral proof of your assertion that I am a bigot. To say my assertion is baseless is just stunning.. I've quoted your own scripture in detail and even provided an excerpt from your Church's publication. And yet taking this teaching to its logical conclusion makes me a bigot?

You see, this kind of rhetoric is easy to spew, but making an argument to the contray requires some actual thinking. If my assertion isn't logical, then you need to explain why. So far all you have done is assert.

Now to be clear, my argument is that Moroni's promise teaches members that sincerity is a necessary requirement before obtaining an answer from God. Thus, when people pray and do not receive an answer, they are frequently told that they are lacking some degree of faith and/or sincerity. This is a logical inference from the scripture and a standard teaching in Mormonism. For you to sit there and deny this, as a Mormon apologist no less, is truly embarrassing for the Church. Good call on pseudonymous posting.

The Latter-day Saints as a people are not bound by this false dichotomy, no matter how much you project your methods upon us.

It isn't a false dichotomy, and you haven't even begun to explain how it must be. My "method" for determining Mormon teaching involves taking Mormon scripture, Mormon teachings and my experience as a Mormon, together into consideration. Yours involves... what? Your say-so? Latter-day Saints are supposed to be bound by LDS teaching, and this is precisely what is taught. If there is some other apologetic spin on this scripture I don't know about, then by all means enlighten us. Either way, the apologists don't make doctrine - much to their chagrin - the church does.

Faithful Mormons are not constrained to see the lack of an immediate answer as either 1) proof of an insincere heart, or 2) as a problem with "the system".

Who said anything about being "constrained"? And who said anything about what Mormons must see? I'm telling you that this is taking this teaching to its logical end, no matter who does it. This is really simple. If people do not receive answers, then the fault can only be found with them or with the proposed method. What's left, if God cannot be at fault?

Nor was WhyMe attempting to make such an argument.

In point of fact, you have no objective, empiral proof of your suggestion that I ever said he was. You're having a difficult time keeping up, huh?

Despite your attempt to straighjacket us with your own preconceptions, we are open to many other possibilites.

If you could step outside your victim role for two seconds and drop all of this "persecuted me" jargon, then maybe you'd see that I've never tried to "straightjacket" anyone into anything. I'm telling you what Mormonism teaches. That you choose to interpret these teachings in another way is your prerogative.

Sorry- but this is your particular tar baby- not ours.

Ours? Who the heck are you anyway? You do not speak for the Church. I let the Church speak for itself. What I say in this thread resonates with every Mormon and ex-Mormon I know. You haven't even begun to offer a variant interpretation of these scriptures; all you've done is accuse me of trying to coerce others into believing a skewed interpretation, as if I never genuinely believed this interpretation to be a valid representation of Mormon teaching. Frankly, I'm shocked that this teaching seems so alien to you. Sincerity is a key factor in receive an answer from God. This has always been standard Mormon teaching. It is taught every day to prospective converts throughout the globe. I never thought I'd have to "straightjacket" a fellow LDS believer into a well established tenet such as this. I think you're arguing against every nano-comment just for the sake of arguing.

True. But we don't assume that a qualifier is also a guarantee.

It is guaranteed when coupled with "faith in Christ," which provides a double-whammy for Christians who claim to pray about the Church; apologists can say that not only were they insincere, but they also lacked faith in Christ. Either way, the point here is that judgment is required by Mormons; judgment you supposedly condemned.

We accept- and teach- that only those who ask in sincerity and faith will receive an answer. We do not, however, presume to put God on speed-dial.

Uh, isn't that what I just said with my own experience? I know being the victim is exhausting, but please try to pay attention. I said I was told that God answers when he gets around to it, even years after I was baptized.

Nothing in Mormon thought or theology implies that God is is some sort of vending machine who responds to every prayer/quarter with an instant/automatic answer

In point of fact, you have no objective, empiral proof of your assertion that I ever said anything about God providing an "automatic" answer. Though now that you bring it up, that is precisely what missionaries tell their investigators. Do you think for a second that a missionary is going to let a prospective convert slip through their fingers after the initial prayer, because they're just not sure if those good feelings they felt was God answering them? As a former missionary, I can tell you that we were taught to tell these people that good feelings was synonymous with God's answer. We would immediately pull out Galatians 5:22 and start going down the list asking them if this is what they felt. If they said yes to any of them, we'd go "You see, that's God telling you the Church is true."

That requirement is one that you insist on imposing us in order to advance your agenda.

It is not something we teach or believe.

It is something taught by every missionary in the field yesterday, today and probably tomorrow. That you do not understand this is unfortunate.

Again- this is a false characterization, made out of malice and spite.

It is a fact, based on Mormon teachings and scriptures. It is standard MTC protocol to get the investigator to pray as soon as possible to get an answer from God. Because only then can that person be "dunked" and put on Church membership lists. When I was serving in Spain and Anaheim, we were told to get the investigator to commit to baptism by the end of the second discussion. Recently I was told by the sister missionaries that times have changed, and now they are instructed to push for a commitment during the first discussion. I recommend you go sit in on a class at the MTC one day or talk to your local missionaries; and spend less time reading online apologetics which is the only endeavor I see that's trying to get others to accept an agenda-driven interpretation of Mormon teachings and practices.

[Xander]

That most people who read the Book of Mormon and pray about it don't get baptized is a matter of debate and qualification.

No it is a matter of fact and anyone who has served a mission understands this to be true. The only reason to question it is based in the false judgment you supposedly condemned. Meaning, you have to assume that most of those people weren't really praying or really reading. This seems highly unlikely. One should think that anyone willing to sit down for a few hours with missionaries from any Church, would be genuinely interested in what they had to say. There is no reason to assume they're going to lie to them when they accept the challenge to read and pray (which most do). That's an assumption apologists make whenever they are confronted with the uncomfortable truth that most people who pray about the Church don't get an answer in the affirmative (many claim an answer in the negative, but of course they're liars too).

Even granting that questionable premise, however, your statement is simply logically untenable.

Argument via assertion. I've already explained the logic, twice now. That you do not understand or accept it is unfortunate.

There are myriad reasons why a potential convert might fail to be baptized. That they failed to receive Moroni's promise is only one possibility.

You're suggesting that number of unbaptized folks who received an answer from God that the Church is true, is more than 50% (remember I said most) of those who have been taught? I served in two missions and cannot think of a single example when someone said they received an answer, but couldn't be baptized due to "other reasons" you assume to be so prevalent among investigators. I'm not denying that there are possible exceptions here. I'm just rejecting your suggestion that these exceptions cover more than 50%. In reality I'd say these cases are remote, representing less than 2%.

That being the case, your assertion that a failure to be baptized is automagically proof that Moroni's promise failed is a non sequitor.

It is a logical induction of the facts that most people do not receive such an answer. Note that I said "most." It is now your job to explain your logic in assuming hundreds of thousands of believers in Mormonism, refuse to get baptized every year. Saying it is "possible" isn't an argument.

You simply have no logical, empirical, or objective basis to make such a claim.

Allow me to introduce you to inductive logic.

Wrong again.

As you introduce me to argument via assertion again.

The problem with this statement is two fold:

First, you're shifting the goal posts. You didn't argue that it was a common rationale among Mormons. You argued that it was "just something Mormons told themselves." Your argument above represents a retreat from the latter position.

Your failure to understand the meaning of the phrase is hardly my problem. Mormons do in fact like to tell themselves these things, and they like it for the reasons already explained. You seem to think these are mutually exclusive statements, when in fact they are not. Mormons like to tell themselves these things because 1. it serves as a convenient apologetic rationale and 2. it is standard Mormon teaching. There is no problem in my argument nor is there a shift in the goal posts.

Second, your own credibility is questionable. You are clearly a hostile witness in every sense of the word- and have been proven incorrect and ideologically blinded on a number of points before hand.

This is a false statement entirely. I've never been proven wrong by you or anyone else on this forum and I would happily admit it if I were. All you are doing here is using the frequently played card of poisoning the well and leaving it to a popularity contest on your home forum. I mean, really? Because I disagree with your worldview and offer a different perspective as a former member, to you this must be interpreted as "hostile" from the get-go. You'd probably be upset to know that there are a number of people on your side of the fence who disagree completely with your knee-jerk judgment of me. In any event, your reasons for doing this are not grounded in a rational, objective, scientific means by which you could know this to be true. It is a faith-based assertion and nothing more.

You have demonstrably revised your rationales and accounts on more than one occasion.

I've done no such thing.

As such- and in the absence of objective evidence to support your claims- we are simply under no obligation to take your interpretation and recollections as proof of what you claim.

Who said anything about obligation? Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant to that fact that what I say is true, and anyone who has served a mission knows that what I say is true. You've done nothing to refute what I've said. All you have done is state that I have no deifinitive proof. Fine. You also have no definitive proof that most apostates are morally corrupt. But you have no problem with the Church teaching such nonsense. Suddenly your concern for logic and proof takes an extreme nosedive when it comes to your own beliefs. And you have the audacity to claim I'm a hypocrite? Wow.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Xander

[DBMormon]

Cobalt - But there is a hierarchy. The father (never the mother, unless the father is absent) might be "the Prophet" of the family. But any knowledge received from God by the father is suspect to the extent that it contradicts knowledge received by "the Prophet" of the church. Ultimately, "the Prophet" of the church is said to have all the keys, including the right to define knowledge for the family and the individual. Thus, in this epistemology, knowledge and power are the same thing.

I disagree Cobalt.... The prophet tells us what the church as a whole should do. The father may receive inspiration on what the family as a whole should do.... never taking away agency except in moments of protection from harm..... My individual chioices in a family or in the church rely on Moroni 7: way to judge is what brings me closer to Christ!

[DBMormon]

Heck I remember in the beginning I wanted the Church to be true so badly, that I deluded myself into thinking any little feeling I had at the time must have been God's answer. I thought the Joseph Smith experience was so cool, I wanted to experience something like it as well. I couldn't wait to go home and pray about it and I had absolute confidence that I'd receive some kind of undeniable experience. In hindsight, I felt nothing that had to be classified as "spiritual."

Some of us have had spiritual experiences though, very profound ones and that is what makes this thread worthwhile to many.

[DBMormon]

Xander - I have sought truth.... though some here may dissagree and I am willing to follow both spiritual truth and historical truth regardless of what direction it takes me... while I have struggled with historical truth I have never had an issue with the spirtual ones. I want you to know that some of them have been undeniable... ones that leave me knowing 1.) there is a God. 2.) he cares about callings in the LDS church, where people serve and how they bless others. 3.) The book of Mormon is the word of God.... anything else to me is up for debate but it has to fit into those three things I know spiritually

[wenglund]

I understand this post wasn't directed at me, but I feel the need to chime in here and say that, though I understand why you put it the way you did (because you believe the sort of thinking at issue is God's way), I do not. It would be question begging to say to me "Brade, you abandoned God's way of thinking" since whether this mode of thought is indeed God's way is at issue.

I see what you are saying. To avoid begging questions that may be open to inter-faith dispute, think of my phrase "God's way" as shorthand for "the way the LDS generally view as God's way."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Or when your mind is so full of judgment.

You're in no position to state, as a matter of fact, that these people didn't sincerely pray or read.

I agree. These are things we are only in a position to judge of oursellves--though we can reasonably proffer general, plausible explanation for why the results of spiritual methodologies for some people may be different than what millions of LDS have experienced..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 21, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Heck I remember in the beginning I wanted the Church to be true so badly, that I deluded myself into thinking any little feeling I had at the time must have been God's answer. I thought the Joseph Smith experience was so cool, I wanted to experience something like it as well. I couldn't wait to go home and pray about it and I had absolute confidence that I'd receive some kind of undeniable experience. In hindsight, I felt nothing that had to be classified as "spiritual."

I confronted my bishop about this and then again when I was at the MTC, but I was always told that God's time isn't necessarily our time, and so he will answer me when he gets around to it. In the meantime, they had no problem with my belief that the Church was true, being based on other things (i.e. the Mormon family made me feel good, I liked the way they treated me, etc).

This seems to be a reasonable approach on the part of your church leaders since it was not only possible that you would eventually get a witness of the spirit, but that you might also come to know of the truth of the gospel by way of Alma 32, just as millions of others of us have.

However, If you didn't, then that might explain your current situation. Perhaps you didn't really lose faith (as we LDS understand it), you may not have had faith to begin with. Perhaps you, like Brade, never developed trust in what we LDS view as God's way, and so you were left with your trust in man's ways.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DBMormon]

just as I have done at times, in the most recent comments some have stated "this is my experience (didn't get an answer to my prayer about the truth of the church) and so I must assume that any answers others get are also not real" (didn't occur, or answered caused from another source then God) I think this is a method we must all be carefull of. I have always struggled knowing the issues historically that I see as an issue and yet many LDS smarter then me come accross them and they are no problem at all. I listen to those on this board, Bushman, Terryl Givens, Dan PEterson and dozens of others and wonder how they can't see things my way???? and yet they don't. just a thought... I know some of the spiritual experiences I have had could not have been coincidence nor vague... I wonder why God doesn't let all all have a vision on the way to Damascus.... certainly would make it easier but we must be careful to assume because we didn't and Saul/Paul did, that his experience wasn't real

Edited April 21, 2012 by reelmormon

[Log]

Perhaps you didn't really lose faith (as we LDS understand it), you may not have had faith to begin with. Perhaps you, like Brade, never developed trust in what we LDS view as God's way, and so you were left with your trust in man's ways.

Wade,

That's never a helpful thing to say, and it may not really ever be accurate either.

Consider: they're here.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Log

[wenglund]

And yet this is what you do regularly without fail. Whyme's quip is but one example of many that could be pointed out, as is your attempt to defend him while simultaneously conceding that he doing precisely what I said he was doing. Surely you can come up with something better than "you do it too"? You're clearly less concerned that a fellow Mormon is engaging in baseless judgment of others and you're clearly more concerned about the fact that an ex-Mormon is pointing it out.

This is bizarre. Log essentially agreed with Kevin on this specific point, and yet Kevin reacts hyper-defensively as though Log is oppposed to him.

Experience has taugh me that when a person reaches this level of irrationality, there is little point in trying to reason with him or her, and I think the subsequent fruitless interactions with Kevin bear this out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-